On Thu, 11 May 2017 18:48:02 -0500
"\\0xDynamite" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > Those pushing the anthropomorphic climate change agenda never,
> >> > AFAIK, ever admit that this view is ONLY consensus (based on data
> >> > and models) but not independently verifiable via the Scientific
> >> > Method, the gold standard for science.
> >>
> >> You're talking in circles. What do you suppose the scientific
> >> method is, genius?
> >
> > As it happens, I, unlike you, know that the
> > scientific method is based on experimentation and trial and
> > error applied to SMALL CLOSED SYSTEMS in a REPEATABLE
> > FASHION. Exactly what you CANNOT do with the atmosphere.
> >
> > But really, talking to a lawyer, theocrat, statist, quack
> > doctor and now enviro, while the titanic is sinking is
> > kinda...pointless.
>
> Especially when you're emotionally invested. Obviously you're
> emotional about it.
Emotional about what? You mean I don't want to be ruled by
idiots (like you) - or by anybody actually? Yep, I am
'emotional' about that.
> So just deal with that, rather than pretend.
Pretend what?
>
> But onto your point and logical claim. No, the scientific method is
> NOT about "small, closed systems" in a "repeatable fashion". REPEAT:
> NOT about that.
Sure sure. I forgot you got your education from the Bible.
Carry on.
>
> So anything else you wish to surprise us with, poo-holer?
>
> \0x
